The
112th Congress is in the process of another shove, another push in its
effort to convert the rights of American citizens into a licensed privilege.
Senate bill 176, entitled the ‘‘Common Sense Concealed Firearms
Permit Act of 2011,” not only flies in the face of individual
rights but stomps all over states powers as well.

In
section two of the bill it looks to add a section to federal statutes
titled as section “926D. Concealed firearms permits” in
which federal law would enact a mandate that controls how state residents
may obtain a concealed carry permit stating:

1.“Establish a process to issue permits to residents of the
State to carry concealed firearms” and2. Requires anyone seeking to carry concealed must
“obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph
(1).”

So,
even states, like Vermont, Arizona, or any others seeking constitutional
concealed carry (where no permit is required) would mandate that the
state take on the process and cost of issuing permits to persons desiring
to do so.

Much
of this, I would have to speculate, is to try and stop the movement
within many states that are doing away with concealed carry permits,
called constitutional carry, and opting for laws that allow their citizens
to carry as they see fit without permit. To do otherwise is a conversion
of a right into a privilege – one does not have to ask permission
to do something that is a right.

Just
so everyone is on the same footing here, a privilege, by legal definition,
is “A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted
to a person or class of persons, an exception to a duty.”
In other words it gives permission to the person exercising the privilege
the ability to do something that would otherwise be illegal without
the permit (permission). Permit goes hand in hand with privilege as
it means: “A certificate evidencing permission; a license
<a gun permit>.”

So
when the government speaks of permits and licensing, anything dealing
with the exercise of a right, they are, in essence, explaining how they
are converting a right into a privilege and by doing so are assaulting
the rights of all Americans and showing their disdain for the Constitution
and their oaths to defend it.

The
requirements section of the bill mandates that a local law enforcement
agency must participate in the process. They define local “law
enforcement” as the agency with jurisdiction where the firearm
carrier resides.

Now
each law enforcement jurisdiction that has residents, that would be
all of them, will be required to devote manpower, equipment, and funding
to cover this process. Nowhere in the bill does it allocate federal
funds to offset the cost of this provision – thus another unfunded
mandate.

It
establishes the minimum requirements that the local
law enforcement must follow before issuing the permit:

A.
“be a legal resident of the United States”B. “be not less than 21”C. “demonstrate good cause for requesting a
concealed firearm permit”D. “demonstrate… applicant is worthy
of the public trust”

In
this one section, primarily items C and D, we have further restricted
states from being a “shall issue” state to becoming a “may
issue” state. Let me explain – some states that issue CCW
permits do so under what it calls a “may issue” definition.
What this means is that the person applying for permission to carry
must show just cause for carrying a weapon. Each state is different
but some possible reasons would be documented death threats, history
of gang attacks, carrying large sums of money in the line of business,
your friends with the chief who gives the permission, a political figure,
or high profile movie star, etc.

The
main point here is that it converts the exercise of the right from that
of the citizen to that of government control. This is by far the most
abused aspect of many states that utilize a “cause based”
factor to issuing permits. In many cases the only reason for the denial
is simply the chief, or whomever it is that makes the determination,
does not know you and self-defense is seldom, if ever, a qualified cause
for issuance.

Advertisemen

Item
D however is probably even more insidious than the cause requirement
in that it now places the state into determining a process under which
to ascertain whether an applicant is “worthy of the public trust.”
How the hell are we going to determine a person worthy of the public
trust? And who is going to sign off that a person is thus trustworthy
and that person ends up becoming the next Ted Bundy?

At
the time of the Ted Bundy killings he was very much involved in political
circles, was invited to, and liked by, the high class circles of the
west and North West. He even received an endorsement letter from a governor
for entry into law school – would he have passed the public worthiness
test before being convicted of killing over 30 women? Would you like
to have your name on a determination of public worthiness for such a
person? And with that in mind how strict are government organizations
going to be in determining public trust worthiness?

So,
would you consider this bill constitutional?

First
off, let’s look at the definition of the term “unalienable
right” – “A right that cannot be transferred or
surrendered;” If we have an individual right to “keep
and bear arms” as stated in the second Amendment and confirmed
by the Supreme Court in the Heller case than this bill puts the Congress
at odds with the Constitution and their oath to defend it.

In
the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Chief
Justice Waite’s ruling included the following statement:

“In
the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers
as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called
upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the
rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it
can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection
is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.”

Justice
Waite affirms the federal jurisdiction as a protection of citizen rights
and the people, but it can exercise no other. Obviously this identifies
that innate “limited” scope of government in America to
be only what the people have given them, not what they can get away
with.

Justice
Waite continues stating:

“The
government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its
authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers
not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the
people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of
the United States, except such as the government of the United States
has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted
or secured are left under the protection of the States.”
(Bold added)

These
powers are delegated, limited, and defined. They are not to be expansive
or broadly defined, but limited in scope and authority to only the defined
powers within the Constitution.

In
speaking of the first amendment right of the people, Justice Waite stated:

“The
particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of
the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and
protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created
by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as
against congressional interference. For their protection in
its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power
for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never
been surrendered to the United States.” (Bold Added)

This,
as with every other amendment, places the correct position and jurisdiction
of the federal government in its correct perspective. The Constitution
does not create rights, nor by the Constitution do the rights rely for
continuance “except as against congressional interference.”
Now look at the tens of thousands of firearm laws that place interference
with citizen’s rights, and ask yourself if you really think Congress
is abiding by this position? I think not!

This
bill is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in unalienable rights
and liberty. For generations Congress has been unconstitutionally abusing
its legislative power to absurd levels. This bill is another stab at
the heart of freedom and another link in the chain of statutory slavery
that has been hoisted upon the American people.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Please
contact your Senator and let them know you will not support for reelection
any member that votes for this bill or any bill that further erodes
the unalienable rights of the American people. This is not about safety
and security this is about control! Control of the American people by
a central government long run amuck – let’s stop this now.

Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He
served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard)
and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified
paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in
the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member.
He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple
Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael
is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution
by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led
him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution
is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America
today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind
and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government
have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution
and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second
Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was
an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now
has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect
of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around
the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited
(for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea,
Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines,
England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael
now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law
and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing,
amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.